Bashing Ayn Rand

[Bfgrn]

Atlas Shrugged should have been a short story. It is by far the most repetitive drudgery ever written.

I would wager most of the alleged conservatives who fly her banner don't even realize she was a hardcore atheist objectivist, and that objectivism misses an understanding of human nature by a country mile.

You mean like liberals who have never read the bible? It's quite possible to agree with one's politics but disagree with their take on religion.

Ayn was correct --sorry you didn't like the way she expressed it.

Atlas shrugged and the bible have a lot in common. Both are fairy tales. Rand's superheroes don't exist in real life and neither do the ones in the bible.

Not true...

Ayn Rand, Hugely Popular Author and Inspiration to Right-Wing Leaders, Was a Big Admirer of Serial Killer

One reason most countries don't find the time to embrace Ayn Rand's thinking is that she is a textbook sociopath. In her notebooks Ayn Rand worshiped a notorious serial murderer-dismemberer, and used this killer as an early model for the type of "ideal man" she promoted in her more famous books.

The best way to get to the bottom of Ayn Rand's beliefs is to take a look at how she developed the superhero of her novel, Atlas Shrugged , John Galt. Back in the late 1920s, as Ayn Rand was working out her philosophy, she became enthralled by a real-life American serial killer, William Edward Hickman, whose gruesome, sadistic dismemberment of 12-year-old girl named Marion Parker in 1927 shocked the nation. Rand filled her early notebooks with worshipful praise of Hickman. According to biographer Jennifer Burns, author of Goddess of the Market, Rand was so smitten with Hickman that she modeled her first literary creation -- Danny Renahan, the protagonist of her unfinished first novel, The Little Street -- on him.

What did Rand admire so much about Hickman? His sociopathic qualities: "Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should," she wrote, gushing that Hickman had "no regard whatsoever for all that society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. He has the true, innate psychology of a Superman. He can never realize and feel 'other people.'"

more

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

No one ever that wasn’t the case.

The problem with Rand and her disciples is that they naively pursue a reactionary course designed to return America to a pre-Lochner period predicated on the fallacy of ‘liberty to contract’ and the anachronistic dogma of the ‘invisible hand.’

The modern American economy is far too large and complex for such simplistic thinking.

However unwittingly, libertarians, for the most part, advocate a regulatory policy – or the lack thereof – that affords property owners the ‘liberty’ to destroy the environment, endanger the safety of their workers, and jeopardize the health and well-being of consumers.

It’s far past the time for libertarians to grow up, abandon the Rand fantasy, and live in the real world – however unpleasant.

I don't think many libertarians are Rand fans. However, that does not preclude them from taking some lessons from Rand's writings. Even though her books are way too long, poorly writen, and her characters are unreal, she has found some nuggets of truth, and that is why her books sold, and why she is often quoted by people who love liberty more than they love security.

Government is like fire. Necessary and useful when confined in scope and size, but a terrible destroyer when loosened. The debates we have today are over the scope and size of the federal government, and where the dividing line exists between controlled and loosened.

Many of us believe that the federal government is very close to, or has already jumped the fire lines and is ripe for creating an inferno that could consume this nation. Others believe that the federal government is benign and compassionate, and would never attempt to bite the hand that feeds it. History has ample examples of how naive the latter opinion is.

Liberty dies when a sufficient number of citizens take it for granted, and ignore the threats to liberty that are always lurking in the shadow.

I don't pay much attention to C_Clayton_Jones, except to occasionally berate and expose him for the two-bit punk, statist bootlick that he is. He's forever imagining that the demands of and, therefore, the classical liberal’s concerns for individual liberty and free-association are overly simplistic. Translation: he mistakes baby talk for profundity, and wants a government that forces his political opponents to bow to his ideology, his morality and is "religion", such as they are, in the public education system especially. He's are resident, self-appointed constitutional "expert." "Pre-Lochner." LOL! Curiously, his reading of the Constitution has more in common with the Jacobinian barbarity of the French revolutionists than it does with the actual Lockean philosophy of our nation's founding. But then he's a leftist twit.

As for Rand, only those not so very steeped in the history of ideas and events pay her any mind beyond the concerns of academia, much less have any need of her advise. The rest of us know better. And anyone with an IQ above that of a gnat, which excludes C_Clayton_Jones, knows that big government is dangerous and arises out of the intellectual and moral decline of the people it governs. Only the stupid and the weak clamor for more and more of it. Unfortunately for the rest of us, the stupid and the weak have always been in the majority.

Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains on their own appetites. Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there is without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters. —Edmund Burke​

Peace.

 

[Bfgrn]

No one ever that wasn’t the case.

The problem with Rand and her disciples is that they naively pursue a reactionary course designed to return America to a pre-Lochner period predicated on the fallacy of ‘liberty to contract’ and the anachronistic dogma of the ‘invisible hand.’

The modern American economy is far too large and complex for such simplistic thinking.

However unwittingly, libertarians, for the most part, advocate a regulatory policy – or the lack thereof – that affords property owners the ‘liberty’ to destroy the environment, endanger the safety of their workers, and jeopardize the health and well-being of consumers.

It’s far past the time for libertarians to grow up, abandon the Rand fantasy, and live in the real world – however unpleasant.

I don't think many libertarians are Rand fans. However, that does not preclude them from taking some lessons from Rand's writings. Even though her books are way too long, poorly writen, and her characters are unreal, she has found some nuggets of truth, and that is why her books sold, and why she is often quoted by people who love liberty more than they love security.

Government is like fire. Necessary and useful when confined in scope and size, but a terrible destroyer when loosened. The debates we have today are over the scope and size of the federal government, and where the dividing line exists between controlled and loosened.

Many of us believe that the federal government is very close to, or has already jumped the fire lines and is ripe for creating an inferno that could consume this nation. Others believe that the federal government is benign and compassionate, and would never attempt to bite the hand that feeds it. History has ample examples of how naive the latter opinion is.

Liberty dies when a sufficient number of citizens take it for granted, and ignore the threats to liberty that are always lurking in the shadow.

I don't pay much attention to C_Clayton_Jones, except to occasionally berate and expose him for the two-bit punk, statist bootlick that he is. He's forever imagining that the demands of and, therefore, the classical liberal’s concerns for individual liberty and free-association are overly simplistic. Translation: he mistakes baby talk for profundity, and wants a government that forces his political opponents to bow to his ideology, his morality and is "religion", such as they are, in the public education system especially. He's are resident, self-appointed constitutional "expert." "Pre-Lochner." LOL! Curiously, his reading of the Constitution has more in common with the Jacobinian barbarity of the French revolutionists than it does with the actual Lockean philosophy of our nation's founding. But then he's a leftist twit.

As for Rand, only those not so very steeped in the history of ideas and events pay her any mind beyond the concerns of academia, much less have any need of her advise. The rest of us know better. And anyone with an IQ above that of a gnat, which excludes C_Clayton_Jones, knows that big government is dangerous and arises out of the intellectual and moral decline of the people it governs. Only the stupid and the weak clamor for more and more of it. Unfortunately for the rest of us, the stupid and the weak have always been in the majority.

Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains on their own appetites. Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there is without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters. —Edmund Burke​

Peace.

Edmund Burke also said:

Education is the cheap defense of nations.
Edmund Burke

Nothing turns out to be so oppressive and unjust as a feeble government.
Edmund Burke

Mere parsimony is not economy. Expense, and great expense, may be an essential part in true economy.
Edmund Burke

Justice is itself the great standing policy of civil society; and any eminent departure from it, under any circumstances, lies under the suspicion of being no policy at all.
Edmund Burke

One that confounds good and evil is an enemy to good.
Edmund Burke

Has our government grown and changed. Yes. Has the world grown and changed? Absolutely. How would our Founding Father address instantaneous interstate commerce, nuclear proliferation, deadly pollution that crosses state lines, superpowers on other continents with the ability to wipe out a vast swath of the U.S. and reduce it to radioactive rubble?

We do know our Founding Fathers had as much or more disdain and hatred for huge corporations like the British East India Company than the King. The colonists dumped BEIC tea in Boston Harbor because the crown gave BEIC a huge corporate tax break that would have put small merchants out of business. And they heavily regulated and controlled all corporations in America.


Whenever a separation is made between liberty and justice, neither, in my opinion, is safe.
Edmund Burke

 

[Cowman]

Ayn Rand is loved by people who are greedy and selfish. Conservative Christians come immediately to mind.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Unfair, Cowman. Quite a few socially liberal atheist libertarians come to mind as well.

 

[Redfish]

Ayn Rand is loved by people who are greedy and selfish. Conservative Christians come immediately to mind.

so its greedy to want to keep what you have earned, but not greedy to want to take what others have earned?????????

 

[Redfish]

Come on people. self determination is not greedy or selfish.

Wanting to keep what you have earned is not greedy or selfish.

Wanting to take what someone else has earned is greedy and selfish.

We are not all equal, the constitution guarantees us equal opportunity, but it does not guarantee equal results.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No one, Redfish, said the Constitution "guarantees us equal opportunity," and you, as a member of our national community, to get help decide what our local, area, state, regional, and national policies should be and how they should work. But you don't dictate what they are. How about that?

 

[Redfish]

No one, Redfish, said the Constitution "guarantees us equal opportunity," and you, as a member of our national community, to get help decide what our local, area, state, regional, and national policies should be and how they should work. But you don't dictate what they are. How about that?

If I could do that, I would be a dictator. What I said is that the majority decide the morals, ethics, and laws that a society will follow.

The bill of rights was established by majority vote. The problem we have today is that we seem to think that a minority view should take precedence over the majority view.

For example, bashing Christians is OK, but bashing muslims is not allowed.

 

[Redfish]

No one, Redfish, said the Constitution "guarantees us equal opportunity," and you, as a member of our national community, to get help decide what our local, area, state, regional, and national policies should be and how they should work. But you don't dictate what they are. How about that?

DOI. all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights....life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. does that not mean equal opportunity?

 

[JakeStarkey]

No one, Redfish, said the Constitution "guarantees us equal opportunity," and you, as a member of our national community, to get help decide what our local, area, state, regional, and national policies should be and how they should work. But you don't dictate what they are. How about that?

DOI. all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights....life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. does that not mean equal opportunity?

Are you able to comprehend?

 

[bripat9643]

Ayn Rand is loved by people who are greedy and selfish. Conservative Christians come immediately to mind.

so its greedy to want to keep what you have earned, but not greedy to want to take what others have earned?????????

The liberal definition of "greedy" is wanting to keep what you have earned. What do you think theses left-wing turds mean when they use the refrain "I'm OK so the hell with you?"

 

[Redfish]

No one, Redfish, said the Constitution "guarantees us equal opportunity," and you, as a member of our national community, to get help decide what our local, area, state, regional, and national policies should be and how they should work. But you don't dictate what they are. How about that?

DOI. all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights....life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. does that not mean equal opportunity?

Are you able to comprehend?

are you? do you know what the DOI is?

I said constitution in error, can you ever forgive me snake?

 

[JakeStarkey]

DOI. all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights....life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. does that not mean equal opportunity?

Are you able to comprehend?

are you? do you know what the DOI is? I said constitution in error, can you ever forgive me snake?

Sure, I forgive you. The issue is this: no is saying we are entitled to equal results. If you have done well in life, as have I, minnow, then I guarantee no one living on welfare is equal to where you are at.

 

[Redfish]

Are you able to comprehend?

are you? do you know what the DOI is? I said constitution in error, can you ever forgive me snake?

Sure, I forgive you. The issue is this: no is saying we are entitled to equal results. If you have done well in life, as have I, minnow, then I guarantee no one living on welfare is equal to where you are at.

but you are wrong, when obama and liberals talk about "fair share" "social justice" and "redistribution" thats exactly what they are talking about---taking what you and I have worked hard for and giving it to someone who has done nothing but sit on the porch with his hand out.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, minnow, they are not, and you are quite foolish to believe that is what they mean. And if it were true, that person sitting on the porch is still not at your level, not anywhere near it.

Having said that, I believe that we need to reform "welfare" (out of date and inadequate description).

 

[Redfish]

No, minnow, they are not, and you are quite foolish to believe that is what they mean. And if it were true, that person sitting on the porch is still not at your level, not anywhere near it.

Having said that, I believe that we need to reform "welfare" (out of date and inadequate description).

do you know how to use the "quote" function? it makes it easier to follow the discussion.

Changing the subject to welfare does not work. Obama and all marxists want to make everyone equal by taking from the haves and giving to the have-nots. If you think thats good, OK, then you are a marxist too.

What does "redistribute the wealth" mean to you?
What does "social justice" mean to you?

 

[bripat9643]

No, minnow, they are not, and you are quite foolish to believe that is what they mean.

Yes, dipstick, they are, and you have to be retarded to believe otherwise.

And if it were true, that person sitting on the porch is still not at your level, not anywhere near it.

What is this twaddle intended to signify?

Having said that, I believe that we need to reform "welfare" (out of date and inadequate description).

More meaningless twaddle.

 

[Redfish]

No, minnow, they are not, and you are quite foolish to believe that is what they mean.

Yes, dipstick, they are, and you have to be retarded to believe otherwise.

And if it were true, that person sitting on the porch is still not at your level, not anywhere near it.

What is this twaddle intended to signify?

Having said that, I believe that we need to reform "welfare" (out of date and inadequate description).

More meaningless twaddle.

right, bri. I have decided that snake jockey is a troll who just wants to stir up shit in every thread.

 

[Redfish]

back to topic for just a post or two.

there is a difference between bashing Rand because of her personal philosophy and bashing the basic message of Atlas Shrugged. Rand's personal ideas were looney to say the least. But the message of Atlas is valid and we are seeing it today. When government intrudes too far into the personal and business lives of the citizens the economy, and the country, will collapse on itself.

She accurately predicted where the country was going, and its happening now.

Thats the point. Thats what should be learned from reading her books.